The merit of poetry, in its wildest forms, still consists in its truth-truth conveyed to the understanding, not directly by the words, but circuitously by means of imaginative associations, which serve as its conductors.
High-class kitsch may well be "perfect" in its form and and composition: the academic painters were often masters of their craft. Thus, the accusation that a work of kitsch is based not on lack of for or aesthetic merit but on the presence of a particularly provocative emotional content. (The best art, by contrast, eschews emotional content altogether.)
It may well be, of course, that America's pop culture is on balance better than our high art. I don't think so, but you can certainly make a case that the best of it aspires to a degree of aesthetic and emotional seriousness that is directly comparable to all but the very greatest works of high art.
Part of my gradual education of myself has been to think that there is a deep relationship between the nature of the creature and the worth of the art.
Poetry is not easy. Or should I say, real poetry is not easy.
I'd rather be hissed at for a good verse, than applauded for a bad one.
I'd like a balance of class and mass films.
My argument would be that I don't think there is much that's genuinely political art that is good art.
